Talk:Draft main page ideas
OK, this is an attempt at rearranging the material on the existing main page to illustrate suggestions I made in discussion with Phil. It's my version of making it a bit clearer and easier for new visitors in particular to get a handle on, throw out for use or not. I'd be inclined to move the "what's SCA for" section at the bottom to the "about" page, and maybe lose the quote altogether. Certainly the current quote seems a bit wordy/academic. Tim Gray 10:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Feedback / more questions Hi Tim, some feedback (and more questions): like some of this, but biggest problem could be the "Sustainability is..." sentence. Is it not significant that in all the years that it's been going the localsustuk list hasn't been able to produce a consensus oneliner (or even 'several liner') about this? (Govt website uses four paras!) So a danger that the first thing people with some knowledge of sustainability will do is try and refine this 'definition' without keeping to the brevity and succinctness needed on a front page. We can try it but I'm concerned it'd be storing up trouble. Maybe it'd help to have a small .. 'more about sust' link after your sentence (and change the What is S link to 'more about sust' as well?) OK so having thought about the page for new visitiors, what about returning visitors (from the just popped in to see if anything has changed to hook my attention, to the more and to varying extent, interested? How could the page be improved for them? (Yes, I know not everyone need come in through the front, but for those who do) To build the sense of 'happening' (stuff going on) I've tried the features approach - can have featured idea, featured Project, featured new article, etc, but can only really do this when there's enough new content. Pictures - getting enough (and striking enough for front page) is still a challenge. Which explains why trying things like Quote of the month - agree could be lost altogether frorn front page if could build up enough by way of new content to show site is continually developing, renewed, refreshed , regenerated etc (and think we should aim high for frequency of new material even if it takes us a while to get there) Still think that something like 'what's sca for' is good for front page, seen as an elaboration of first para - to emphasise words such as Sharing, signosting, developing and growing - but could be tighter and more concise perhaps? (Maybe across full page below boxes to emphasise is an elaboration? - don't know just an idea) I also very much like the phrase 'build a bigger alliance' (which maybe means more to me than anyone else yet) but to write an article about this (with a link from one of the main pages) is just another of those things that I intend ot get round to doing eventually! And isn't there something to be said for giving the opportunity to sign up now on the front page? When we're getting closer, or straightaway (?) we could signpost this (draft redesign of front page) as 'collaboration of the week' on the Community Portal, and then leave it for a week / ten days or so, then more chance of more feedback . What do you think? Philralph 14:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Well, if people start adding treatises to the front page they'll need polite re-education. But you can't have a front page that won't tell visitors what the site's about because it's afraid of criticism. A link to a page that draws things out more is a good idea. (Edit: to be very clear, I'm not saying the form of words I used is the right one, just that there needs to be something short conveying the *sense* of SD.) :I think one of the problems the SD movement has had is poncing about over alternative, carefully crafted definitions instead of coming up with a clear manifesto/slogan/catchline. My opinion is that the central message of SD is very simple, and I wonder whose interests have been served by surrounding it with mystique. I think the problem has been that people are afraid to couch it as an ethical idea. :It's good to have some front page content about what's new for returning visitors, and I often do this when I design a site. Slightly harder with no overall control, perhaps, and can backfire if it shows no activity for a long time. So yes, more contributors needed. The lack of input from the localsustuk list disappoints me a bit. I'll encourage that when I do the WUN announcement. :I like the "what's it for" section for *somewhere*, and the terms in there would be good for search engines linking the home page. I'm just concerned the page is getting a bit long. I wouldn't break out of the two columns with it - bullet points will create odd use of space. :"build a bigger alliance" isn't bad I guess... maybe that could go in "you can help"? :Tim Gray 15:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Adding treatises, not the problem, it's the messy stuff in between - a word here, a phrase there - difficult to describe as a treatise but can put off more people than it includes. Whatever our opinions of the SD movement don't we have to be respectful of how it actually is? And actually maybe how it is, it is for good reason, even if it's difficult for us to put our finger on it. There isn't any problem about including explanation of what SD is, the only problem comes about through the percieved need for what amounts to a soundbite. For me that it resists being turned into a soundbite is a strength not a weakness. Don't soundbites lead people to tick boxes? Aren't we about something which is much more rich in meaning (and is therefore never about who'll agree with our self chosen soundbite, but much more inclusive than that) and about the long term with the implied wisdom (and humility) that we don't know it all yet? ::We can try with words like well-being (actually that was one of the reasons for including links to env, s & econ wellbeing in the links - to a certain extent the links are the epxlanation) but then people say what do you mean by well-being, or quality of life and then some say but we have no quality of life (so not interested), and so it goes on and on and on (!) Ethical, yes I agree with you (but I still think it's more important to find a way of including those who for whatever reason think that ethical means something very different to what it may mean to you or I, and if that means that people have to work just a little harder to followthrough (and isn't SD about following through) cause there isn't a soundbite on the front page, then I reckon I can probably live with that. (also think the challenge becomes even greater still when you're trying to be inclusive of different global cultures, and we are for that aren't we, SD not just for the developed world? )Philralph 16:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I hear what you're saying about it being good to get people to really think things through so that change isn't just superficial. But that has to start somewhere, and that means you have draw people in when they're beset by competing information on all sides. Soundbites are a response to the need to make a point quickly in a way that people remember. Like anything else they're a tool for a particular set of applications. :If you make people "work just a little harder" to grasp what the site's about you'll lose them. And after 13 years of Local Agenda 21, looking around my locality at least I'm thinking we can't afford that any more. Think of the site like an instruction manual that starts off giving people a basic idea of what it's talking about and guides them through to wider and deeper understanding one step at a time. The format certainly supports that. :What worries me - and this perhaps comes back to your "respecting the movement as it actually is" - is the idea that the general public are faced with a small group of specialists who clearly desperately want them to sign up to something but are unable to tell them what it is. Tim Gray 16:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I know one comment might be:" Isn't "maximising wellbeing now and in the future" incredibly hedonistic (and missing the point of environmental limits completely, etc, etc)?" One option if we really do want to include a one-liner is perhaps to bite the bullet and try one more time to get something out of the localsustuk list (who for the time being at least are going to be able to give us much more of a consensus than we could get to here, explaining very clearly that what we're after is something that just "starts off giving people a basic idea of what it's talking about and guides them through to wider and deeper understanding one step at a time", etc. Hasn't Chris been asking also for something like this fairly recently? Do you want to offer a suggested phrase to start off with? We could also put a time limit on for replies from the list (?)Philralph 17:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Heh. Well, I'm all in favour of maximising pleasure. It's just that there are limits to what I'll do to get it. But I guess you're right about the existing phrase not sounding responsible. "Sustainability is about changing the way we do things to give a good quality of life for all, within the carrying capacity of the planet, both now and in the future"? :Ask the list if you like, but I'm inclined to think that's giving a bunch of people an excuse to argue with each other when they could be doing something more productive. You could ask Chris by email or at the conf whether he thinks it's worthwhile. Tim Gray 18:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I'm trying to avoid falling into the trap you describe myself! I suggested the list as we may (I don't know yet) have irreconciable differences over this - so a test case for conflict resolution (?) - in which case one tries to get another viewpoint - they won't come to us so we have to go to them. Perhaps to begin the "more productive" we should consider writing (collaborating on) the follow-up article as well as seeing if we can get to what you're after for the main page (so the one informs the other) . At the moment Sustainability - the basics is intended as the first step (only, with links off to further steps) in the step by step guide you see possibilities for as well. As this is all pretty basic stuff though I prefer still to keep to the draft mode - so we could draft a better follow-up article, as well, do you think? (I have a problem with your starting off with 'change' - but rather than keep on about what I have a problem with I should be being more constructive - so writing something somewhere that I'm happy with, with further explanation as necessary) If we're producing anything of value here in this discussion it needs to find it's way into real articles later on. OK so to walk the talk here's my Draft step by step guide to sustainability - the whole thing including the first step for possible inclusion on main page Philralph 06:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I hope we don't have irreconcilable differences! My basic position is that there are certain things I think the front page needs to be doing better. We're using the tools available to discuss it rather than rushing into edits and conflict. I think it's good. :Do you want further discussion on the "sustainability in a nutshell" thing to happen on that other page? Your nutshell there isn't bad. I might be inclined to make it clearer that we mean all people everywhere, and I wonder whether "economic well-being" is a red herring. (My position is that there are no economic goals of SD, but there are economic tools of SD. Economics doesn't have rights; people do. Arriving at this position meant I had to abandon the neat 3-part explanation I'd been using for years.) :The "change" thing is just to get across that it's dynamic: we're not just talking about a utopian end-state, we're talking about doing stuff to get there. It would be nice to see a sense of that in the final version. Tim Gray 15:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Discussion on talking about sustainability continued on specific page... : I've tried the Forum for the Future "definition" of sustainability that appears on the Sustainable development definitions page in the top text, and must say I like the way it looks. Tells the story, though maybe a bit wordy for the general public (I see Porritt's hand there!). Tim Gray 17:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I think you've hit on something we can go with, but hopefully on the basis that we don't muck about with it anymore. .As I've implied before I really don't want to get stuck in long arguments about what sustainability is every time someone new joins the wiki. If we can stick with this relatively 'clean' and hopefully relatively uncontentious intro, then yes I do think it's a genuine improvement. ::I don't want to include it on the Main page just yet, cause it'd unbalance the cols quite a bit. But maybe we're not that far away from settling on a design for the rest (?) ::I think I'm coming round to your orginal suggestion of just main links with brief explanation - for 2 reasons: 1. in any case I now think the orginal 'sea of links' (perhaps incorporating some of your design layout/ suggestions) should be included on the Community Portal (so less need for detail on Main Page) 2. The whole things feels as if it ought to resolve into a more basic structure using the 2 cols - i.e left h col - mainly for info for the new visitor, rh col - mainly for 'new' / refreshable content which helps convey image of liveliness / 'happening' site/wiki. So I'm wondering about move the features type stuff (of which there used to be more) to rh col and making more of (to again help balance the cols, still starting though with you can help). Shall I try some of this? Philralph 07:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::On second thoughts, not sure I'm going to be around much rest of this week, so you maybe want to try whatever yourself? e.g. if you wanted to include something about WUN on Main Page (whenever you feel the time is right) as part of the 'new' / features side, how might you prefer to do it? Philralph 07:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Excellent! I'm all for not mucking about. I just wanted something that gives the new visitor a starting point on "what's this site about" so they can decide whether to dig deeper or go away again. :My next question was going to be (and is!), are there any bits of my fiddling around on this page that we both agree on as improvements for the main page? If so, those could be ported across. :With the 2 columns, an important consideration is what the user sees in their browser window when they first open the page. The stuff you want everyone to see has to be at the top; other stuff they can scroll down for, though in conventional web design wisdom there should be as little of that as possible. The nutshell we've been discussing has to be one of these top sections. Other main candidates would be the bit that explains what a wiki is and the what's new section (if that works for something that grows as organically as this should). :When you're around again we can perhaps go through section by section and update the main page. Tim Gray 09:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Attempt at recap, details latest edit More details of edit just completed: #removed What's SCa for on the basis that this can be incorporated in to About page #changed News ; to , (; far too fussy?) #changed c portal to what you can do - (goes against the grain to have CP link when repeats LH nav col link) #changed what is S link to 'more about S' for consistency #included build a bigger alliance in you can help section #more spaced out what's new section on rh side (draft only) #removed quote section Philralph 20:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Looking good. Tim Gray 21:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Tim, assuming you have no more major concerns over this, and more particularly that you're happy to mention WUN on main page and how this is done, I'm happy now to copy the whole thing across. Also suggest we keep this article, at least temporarily with (boiler plate?) text across top saying 'Draft redesign retained for accompanying discussion on talk page' Philralph 07:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :That sounds fine. Happy to see it as is. If anyone else comes along later and has constructive comments we can fine-tune it, but I think this is a very useful improvement. Good call on keeping this page for anyone who wants to follow the discussion. Tim Gray 09:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)